Arizona

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.2782nd
  Defense−0.0483rd
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense50.3%91st
  Defense35.5%83rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2654th
  Defense+1.3813th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1562nd
  Defense+0.0166th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4587th
  Defense−0.0387th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.5%80th
  Defense38.6%93rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense43.0%95th
  Defense30.5%39th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2672nd
  Defense2.7170th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.0%44th
  Defense21.8%73rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.9%62nd
  Defense16.1%54th

Percentiles among the 138 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2026

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Arizona allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   NAU
2. L
   BYU
3. W
   NIU
4. W
   WSU
5. W
   CIN
6. W
   WVU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Arizona.

Players, 2026

1. Noah FifitaQB175 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 26th of 192 QBs
   0.44WAR0.19 to 0.69
2. Kedrick ReescanoRB59 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 57th of 320 RBs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.16
3. Isaiah MizellWR21 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 78th of 364 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
4. Tre SpiveyWR19 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 86th of 364 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.11
5. Quincy CraigRB22 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 213th of 320 RBs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.06
6. Ismail MahdiRB13 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 223rd of 320 RBs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.05
7. Chris Hunter IIIWR19 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 225th of 364 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
8. Giovanni RichardsonWR8 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 241st of 364 WRs
   0.02WAR0.02 to 0.03

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Arizona's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  70070054th of 138Roster talent: 700, 54th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19619657th of 138Recruiting: 196, 57th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  65%65%33rd of 136Returning production: 65%, 33rd of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +15.2+15.219th of 138SP+ rating so far: +15.2, 19th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Arizona's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.04 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. at WSUQ3 9:25 4th & 2 at WSU 25, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
2. at BYUQ3 0:01 4th & 10 at BYU 36, down 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
3. at WSUQ3 6:00 4th & 4 at WSU 26, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. at WSUQ4 1:57 4th & 5 at WSU 34, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. at WVUQ2 5:27 4th & 2 at ARIZ 33, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs CINQ2 12:45 4th & 3 at ARIZ 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at BYUQ2 9:33 4th & 3 at ARIZ 43, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at WVUQ4 5:45 4th & 5 at WVU 33, up 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

40th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Arizona's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   NAU
2. L

   BYU
3. W

   NIU
4. W

   WSU
5. W

   CIN
6. W

   WVU

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Arizona's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard+0.21
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.66

Game by game

• NAUW 35-7 vs NAU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• BYUL 17-28 at BYU30% → 1%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −33, Possession & field position +1
• NIUW 42-17 vs NIU98% → 2%Before kickoff +48 · On the field −96: Scoreboard −50, Clock −2
• WSUW 34-24 at WSU79% → 98%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +31, Clock +2
• CINW 34-7 vs CIN75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28
• WVUW 52-31 at WVU65% → 100%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +40, Clock +2

Points of win probability, from Arizona's side.

Closest call

NIU 17-42 ARIZ (2026) - Arizona dropped to a 1.4% win probability before pulling it out.